The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

originally posted by: samkent

See the animated GIF of the destruction of the top part of Tower-1N, with the two red horizontal lines, I posted a few posts up there.
The whole section under the lowest red line, does not change at all.!
While the whole upper top half is exploding.

The top section is falling into the lower section.
Much as you would expect when the impacted floor(s) gives way.
I don't understand your surprise?

Are you serious? Or sat on your reading glasses?
The impacted floors didn't give way.
It were the floors above them, that were exploded first. Upwards.
Then the 4 corners were blown up, they did not sink into the intact part under that lower red line.!



You really think that top 15 stories part sunk as a PISTON into the CYLINDER of the intact 95 stories?
While you clearly do not see ANY damage done to all windows UNDER that red line. During the first 3 seconds of that top half part demolition.

An animated-gif from the video of the North Tower collapse :



And you also totally forgot the huge hat truss, where that antenna stood in the center. And that hat truss stood on all 47 core columns.
So you believe those 47 core columns were not cut ALL TOGETHER exactly where you saw the sinking begin? At about the 103rd floor?

And that was a floor with minimal damage and all fire-proofing still intact.
And all those 47 thick steel core columns failed AT ONCE ? N A T U R A L L Y ???

a reply to: LaBTop

It were the floors above them, that were exploded first. Upwards.

Upwards?
I fail to see any 'upwards' anywhere.

And yes I see the upper section coming down onto the lower section.
Tearing through trusses and snapping connecting plates.

Only you see explosives being set off floor by floor all the way to the ground.

Let me ask you this.
Why does the floors of the upper section disappear one by one in an upward sequence?
Do you believe they exploded floor 80 then 82 then 82 all the way to the top?
How do you accomplish this in such a nice neat fashion?
Fire proof armored det cord?

How did all those people on the debris line miss all those explosives wire and det cord?
Since they were searching for fingers and toes you would expect them to trip over the leftovers.

But wait they were paid not to talk about what they found. Right?

As to the hat truss and 47 core columns.
Which failed first the core or the exterior? Chicken or the egg.
Does it matter? A millisecond here or there.

What does matter is that after 13 full years no one has ever found one shred of evidence that proves a conspiracy.
You have been looking in that closet for 13 years and still can't find that boogie man.
At some point you need to realize that he's not there.

You are not a structural engineer. The only place your words hold up is on a conspiracy website.

originally posted by: samkent
How did all those people on the debris line miss all those explosives wire and det cord?
Since they were searching for fingers and toes you would expect them to trip over the leftovers.

But wait they were paid not to talk about what they found. Right?

As to the hat truss and 47 core columns.
Which failed first the core or the exterior? Chicken or the egg.
Does it matter? A millisecond here or there.

What does matter is that after 13 full years no one has ever found one shred of evidence that proves a conspiracy.
You have been looking in that closet for 13 years and still can't find that boogie man.
At some point you need to realize that he's not there.

You are not a structural engineer. The only place your words hold up is on a conspiracy website.

It's unfathomable that anyone would take someone's word as gospel without solid evidence, so I must agree with you in challenging the claim of "upwards" debris.

Better evidence would be motion tracking (from video) whatever piece is being discussed. I believe that Chandler did this when he tried to claim that an aluminum piece of cladding was being rocket propelled by thermite in some manner. lol...

Sam. Everyone reading this forum knows I have given you already multiple times the other forms of ignition, so stop repeating yourself endlessly. It's showing something is really wrong with your memory. Or are you a cluster poster, many under one name.

Sam. Now I understand. You didn't read the full link, and its reference links, I gave you in this post on the previous page 13.

And this was that link, with loads of other links to experienced ENGINEERS their publications :
Chandler's Downward Acceleration Of WTC1 - No Math.

It was meant for the mathematically impaired. Those who never got a fair chance to get a proper education, since they had to work at a young age already, to feed their families.
Which does not stop them however, at an older age, to repair that problem, to work on a proper education, starting for example with reading this partly excerpt from ""Chandler_DownwardAccelerationOfWTC1-NoMath.pdf"", that refutes NIST's "Pile-driver" theory.
NIST themselves refuted already the "Pancaking" theory from the FEMA-report.

David Chandler explains in his first 12 pages, through exact measurements via a software program called "Tracker", and two diagrams, how he arrives at and proves the 36 % weight value, then :

page 12.... Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed "pile driver," suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work.

One might argue, in terms of the strength of the various elements, that the impact of the falling block might crush the lower section of the building (although this assertion has been challenged [13]), but it cannot crush the lower block while it maintains its downward acceleration. Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti have made a parallel observation, based on a similar measurement, in their paper, "The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis."[14] They point out that any increased force on the lower section of the building must be accompanied by a decrease in the momentum of the falling block.

[12] T. Szamboti. (2007, May) The sustainability of the controlled demolition hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers. [Online]. Available:
www.journalof911studies.com... [Accessed Mar 1, 2009]
[13] G. Ross. (2006, Jun.) Momentum transfer analysis of the collapse of the upper storeys of WTC 1. [Online]. Available:
www.journalof911studies.com... [Accessed Mar 1, 2009]
[14] G. MacQueen and T. Szamboti. (2009, Jan.) The missing jolt: A simple refutation of the NIST-Bazǎnt collapse hypothesis. [Online]. Available:
www.journalof911studies.com... [Accessed Mar 1, 2009]
[15] C. M. Beck. (2007, Nov.) Mathematical models of progressive collapse and the question of how did the World Trade Centers perish. [Online]. Available:
arxiv.org... [Accessed Mar 1, 2009].

V. CONCLUSION
We have determined the static and the dynamic features of a progressive collapse in the WTCs using the structural properties of the building and the mathematical models of the avalanche propagation. We have formally expressed the destruction scenarios proposed by NIST as a sequence of damaging events in the primary (or impact) zone of each building, which leave the secondary zone (below) intact. We have shown that the static and dynamic features of collapse are mutually consistent. On the other hand, we have demonstrated that the NIST scenarios are inconsistent with the structural parameters of the building. More precisely, the features of the avalanche propagation (initiation and duration) indicate that in their final moments the buildings did not have the core columns (CCs). We conclude that the buildings did not perish because of combined mechanical and heat damage to their primary zones, but because of yet another catastrophic event: a wave of massive destruction (WMD) that destroyed the CoreColumns, following which the buildings collapsed to the ground.

Those references are written by proper educated engineers, with long years of experience. And one professor teaching engineering.
I can follow their arguments easily since I had the proper education, and see no flaws in their reasoning. Can you?

For all the still doubting readers who read and then want to know more about GenRadek's endless repetitive posts about him doubting that Thermobaric Bombs even exists, he even thinks they only exist in my imagination (smile) :

This is real, SCIENTIFIC Thermobaric bombs based research, after reading all this, your doubt will either be gone, or substantially smaller :

REFERENCES :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: LaBTop

""LaBTop : It were the floors above them, that were exploded first. Upwards.""

Upwards?
I fail to see any 'upwards' anywhere.

And yes I see the upper section coming down onto the lower section.
Tearing through trusses and snapping connecting plates.

Only you see explosives being set off floor by floor all the way to the ground.

Let me ask you this.
Why does the floors of the upper section disappear one by one in an upward sequence?
Do you believe they exploded floor 80 then 82 then 82 all the way to the top?
How do you accomplish this in such a nice neat fashion?
Fire proof armored det cord?

If you don't see any downwards destruction during any time sequence, then you know there is only upwards.
Or, you see a demolition of the upper half of the burning/smoldering impacted top part above that lower red line in that above, animated GIF.
After that, read the following to understand what you so hastily want to write now, is a non-argument.

Smile to the camera, NOW!


Do note I don't call you guys stupid, au contraire, you seem uneducated. Or else.

From [15] C. M. Beck. (2007, Nov.) Mathematical models of progressive collapse and the question of how did the World Trade Centers perish. [Online]. Available:
arxiv.org... [Accessed Mar 1, 2009].

Excerpt from C.M. Beck's excellent VI. DISCUSSION, section 2. Rigidity assumption :

WTC 1 - WTC 2 Explosives steered progressive collapses :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

... We find 1λ = 0.013 for WTC 1, and 2λ = 0.029 for WTC 2, which are considerably smaller then their yield strains λy’s. Thus, contrary to the NIST claim, the total plastic deformation of the intact vertical columns in the secondary zone was more than sufficient to arrest the fall of the top section.

From our discussion so far it follows that :
(i), the secondary zones of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not intact - in agreement with the hypothetical “wave of massive destruction” (WMD) destroying the core columns (CCs) discussed earlier, and
(ii), the destruction of the remaining vertical columns (PCs, perimeter columns) was either not through compression, or there had to be a mechanism present that would pull the perimeter columns (PCs) inwards and into the path of the avalanche.
This said, let us propose a consistent hypothetical model of an avalanche. The avalanche is created by severing the central core columns (CCs) at some distance from the primary zone. This makes the avalanche consist of the intact top section, the intact core columns (CCs) of which penetrate the secondary zone, and so give it an overall wedge-like appearance.
As a result of weight redistribution, the avalanche now interacts only with the perimeter columns (PCs) from the top of the primary zone down to the level at which the core columns (CCs) were severed from the secondary zone core columns (CCs). The avalanche’s core columns (CCs) pull the secondary zone perimeter columns (PCs) inwards, and so compromise them, while the intact top section finishes the perimeter columns (PCs) as it goes down.
In this way, the avalanche never encounters the rigidity of the whole building, just of its small section, as discussed earlier. Furthermore, the pulling action is realized with the intact floor structure in the secondary zone, through the tension of the floor trusses. As is known, the tension yield of the floor trusses is much greater then their shear yield force. From the outside, it appears as if the avalanche starts at the weakest point of the remaining structure: the compromised perimeter columns (PCs) in the primary zone. By propagating so, the avalanche sees mostly the resistive force of the perimeter columns (PCs) in the secondary zone, and some friction from the penetration of avalanche core columns (CCs) into the floor structure of the secondary zone. The compromising of the secondary zone core columns (CCs) continues so that the next severing point is always ahead of the avalanche: otherwise, the avalanche’s core columns (CCs) might interfere with the severing, which (b)if prevented would result in a slowing down of the avalanche.(/b) The process continues until the avalanche reaches the ground floor. We show the schematic of such collapse in Fig. 4.

Isn't that exactly what I tried to explain to you 4 amigos in the preceding pages?
Yes, indeed, but this is the science-speak version, which you repeatedly show not to understand at all, so we have to use the "vox populist" speak.
That's why I added all the full descriptions to those abbreviations (WMD; CC; PC) in the above excerpt.

By the way, there's a lot more explained in the rest of Beck's text after that, by explosives steered, progressive collapses drawing.
Such as how WTC 7 was exploded, and a lot of good math.

originally posted by: LaBTop


Are you serious? Or sat on your reading glasses?
The impacted floors didn't give way.
It were the floors above them, that were exploded first. Upwards.
Then the 4 corners were blown up, they did not sink into the intact part under that lower red line.!

This is laughable.

The lower red line in that gif is at the lowest fire floor, but the collapse initiated a few floors above that.

The gif clearly shows the top section sinking into the lower section.

All anyone needs to do is look at a video and it becomes clear that this gif was created to deceive. Apparently it worked.

When you view those videos, you see the following.
In the first few seconds, the upper half (103 -110) of the top 15 stories (95 - 110) crushed the lower half (95 - 102) of those top 15 stories, while the 0 - 95 stories part under them acted as if that top 15 stories part stood on solid ground. In other words, those top 95 stories were rigid under that red line in those first seconds of destruction.

Now read pages 11, 12, 13 and 14 from David Chandler's "NoMath pdf". Combine that with what I excerpted above, from Beck's texts.

Then you will hopefully understand, that the fact that you see those bottom 95 stories standing rigid in those first 3 seconds of destructive events happening above them, indicates that an ADDITIONAL external force must have acted upon those lower 95 stories, after or just milliseconds before the destruction passed/proceeded under that red line drawn at the 95th floor space.

The measured data points are showing a constant acceleration in the first 3 seconds, of the mass under the 110th floor its roof-line. With no halting/braking jolt appearing in the resulting graph.
A braking-jolt to be expected to appear in the first second already, had it been an unassisted natural collapse.
No jolt appeared in that first second, or the next ones, which means no resistance of any importance. Which only appears in cases where that resistance is RAPIDLY removed by external means, in this case, explosives.

David Chandler's calculations also showed the readers, that the upward-acting normal force from that rigid 95 stories block under the initial destruction was only 36% of the weight of the upper block, as illustrated in his Figure 3. Read the descriptive 6 text lines under that drawing.
You don’t need to know the actual weight of the upper block to make that 36% weight calculation.

David's Page 12 : One might argue, in terms of the strength of the various elements, that the impact of the falling block might crush the lower section of the building (although this assertion has been challenged [13]), but it cannot crush the lower block while it maintains its downward acceleration.
Which it did in those first 3 seconds. And we see that in those first 3 seconds the lower 95 floors maintain rigidity. Action = reaction, the reaction worked upwards on the top 7-8 floors which were destructed in the first seconds, then the lower 7-8 floors followed, while during all those 3 seconds, the 95 bottom floors stood rigid.

Page 13 : Some might object to oversimplifying the model quite this much. It has been argued that the crushed material at the interface of destruction is accreted to the upper section so the mass of the falling block grows as it falls, producing an avalanche effect.[15]
I would argue, from the fact that a major fraction of the mass landed outside the footprint of the building, that accretion was at most partial, but let us consider the effect of any such accretion.

Etcetera, read the rest too.!

Page 15 : Thus the normal force, taking accretion into account is even less than when accretion is ignored.
Therefore, perhaps counter-intuitively, any accreted material reduces the effectiveness of an assumed pile driver. This result may become reasonably intuitive once one recognizes that the falling block must transfer some of its momentum to the accreted mass to bring it up to speed.

Coming winter, put fife 1 kg snow heaps at f.ex. 30 cm intervals on the children's-glide at your local playground, and let a 5 kg weight with some grease under it, loose on the top, to get a partial impression of what David means. Since it is not perpendicular to the ground, it's just a partial example, but you will get some of the intuition as you see that weight slowing down.

Page 16 : Summary :
The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the collision with the lower section of the building indicates that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward, the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static weight on the lower section of the building.
Any accretion of material into the upper block would have acted as an inertial brake, reducing the force of interaction even further. The undamaged lower section of the building was built to support several times the weight of the material above it, but whether or not we take the safety factor into account, the reduced force exerted by the falling mass could not have been what caused the violent destruction of the building seen in numerous videos. The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is strong confirmation that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it, allowing the upper block to fall with little resistance.

Only explosives could do this so rapidly as seen by us all.

Then Charles M. Beck's [15] valuable paper (see excerpts in my above post) explains why a natural progression further downwards would have looked very different from what actually happened after the destruction front passed that anim.gif's red line at the 95th floor.

David Chandler's page 16-17 : Having assumed the existence of an indestructible falling block, with or without accretion, we have demonstrated that, given the observed acceleration, such a block could not possibly have destroyed the lower section of the building. When we turn to the video evidence we see that even the hypothesized existence of a persistent upper block is a fiction.
Videos show that the section of the building above the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate. It was significantly reduced in size prior to the onset of destruction of the lower section of the building. Once the roof line descends into the debris cloud there is no further evidence even of its continued existence. Whether or not it was completely destroyed early in the collapse is a moot point. We have shown that even if it continued to exist intact, it could not have played a significant role in the destruction of the building. A small section of a structure, consisting of a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger lower section of the same structure by gravity alone.

What we saw first was a 15 story building getting demolished, on top of a 95 stories rigid building. That 15 stories high significantly reduced in size partial section then met the rigid lower 95 stories section, and should have been halted within a reasonable short distance.
Which it did not. Against all viewers expectations and gut feelings.
And the educated part of the audience knew instantly that we got conned again.
Lots of them decided to take distance, and go on with their already increasingly difficult life, why add an extra burden on it?

And that's why I salute all still working and risking architects, engineers, physicists, chemists, all scientists who come and came forward with their attributions, to confront the CON-MEN/WOMEN who did this to us all.

a reply to: LaBTop

Total and utter bull cookies because the North Tower was hit almost exactly mid elevation and because of the orientation of the core in the tower so was the core.

When the collapse started material fell internally and started to strip away floor slabs that took way the restaint between core and outer walls , the walls started to fall away as the internal mass continued to fall.

No BS explosives required.

originally posted by: LaBTop

Page 16 : Summary :
The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the collision with the lower section of the building indicates that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward, the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static weight on the lower section of the building.

Chandler? Really?

He's misleading you.

1- As is practice in the truth movement, Newton's Laws of motion in their original form (which is what Chandler is using) don't apply.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion

"Newton's laws are applied to objects which are idealised as single point masses"

"In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterise the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies"

The towers were not point masses.